Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate Minutes

2000 No. 557

May 4, 2000

For All Faculty

The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order on May 4, 2000, at 3:00 PM, in the LaSells Stewart Center by President Gordon Matzke. There were no corrections to the minutes of April 2000.

Walker noted several concerns the task force wanted discussed. One concern relates to the DPD recommendation
that the course have a United States focus. She explained that this focus was approved by the Senate in May
1992. This focus does not mean the entire course must be exclusively focused on the U.S. and she stated that the
course can draw from experiences in other countries. She noted that one of the criteria states that historical issues
must be brought to the forefront. Reasons to maintain the U.S. focus include students indicating a need to focus
attention on contemporary society and students desiring an emphasis directly related to their everyday life. Some
disciplines may have difficulty incorporating into the DPD, but the DPD seminar would help to bring the content to
the U.S. experience. She also noted that there are other categories in the Baccalaureate Core that provide non-U.S. experiences.

Walker also mentioned that a new Baccalaureate Core category in which to place DPD is being proposed. She
noted that the BCC endorsed the proposed criteria and rationale, but neither endorsed nor disagreed with the
separate category. After examining the purpose of DPD and the means for which to achieve the purpose, the group
felt that the proposal would not fit very well in the current categories since Perspectives courses are about skills,
particular disciplines, and interrelationships among disciplines (DPD is beyond that); and Synthesis courses do not
focus on difference and power. In addition, the BCC currently approves Perspectives courses only at the lower division
and DPD courses should also be available at the upper division. Walker noted that DPD courses were originally
approved as both lower and upper division in 1992, but have been only approved at the lower division with the change
in BCC membership. The task force feels that the Senate should decide whether a category should be offered at upper
or lower division.

Irma Delson, Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, suggested DPD in the U.S. or DPD - An American Perspective
as an alternative title since the current title implies something much broader than it actually is. She did not disagree
with the content or intent. Walker responded that the title had not been discussed.

Senator Landau, Science, felt that the program could be stronger and made less-self-contradictory if #4 was changed
to draw attention to activities in the U.S. He sees #4 "focus primarily on the United States, although global contexts
are encouraged", to be contradictory with the aspiration to "free people's minds from ignorance, prejudice, and
provincialism and to stimulate a lasting attitude of inquiry." Walker noted that the aspiration comes from an OUS
publication and applies to all higher education in the State of Oregon. Landau argued for as broad a view of diversity
as possible. He recommended changing the wording in #4.

Jim Foster, Liberal Arts, explained that one of the original goals of Affirming Diversity (prior to the DPD title) was to
create a safe space in the classroom for students to ‘think outside the cultural box’. He noted that these are transferable
skills and not ethnocentric skills targeted strictly to American students. He argued that having a U.S. focus does not
mean that it's about the U.S. For example, the U.S. treatment of particular ethnic groups can be combined with a discussion
about the Holocaust.

Senator Shaw, Liberal Arts, spoke of DPD providing an opportunity for students to distance themselves from what is
familiar. It also encourages mathematicians and scientists to think creatively.

Senator Robson, Science, suggested that there be an explicit requirement that the point of these classes is to
confront and educate faculty and students about what is happening and how it relates to today and not to some
historical facts.

Senator Tolar Burton, Liberal Arts, supported the proposed wording and argued that the category specialness of DPD is
different because it is not presumed that faculty are already experts in this area.

Senator Gardner, Science, was opposed to the U.S. focus.

President-elect Sayre spoke in support of the proposal and encouraged faculty to view ‘U.S. focus’ broadly and
generally.

Senator Wood, Health & Human Performance, supported the wording in #4 and suggested deleting the United
States reference in #6 and #7 of the criteria.

Leslie Burns, Undergraduate Academic Programs, noted that there are areas in both Perspectives and Synthesis
that focus on international issues.

Senator Lee, Associated, agreed that the issue is one of semantics. She felt there is a need to both include
international perspectives and to be inclusive in all disciplines.

Walker emphasized that this course can be part of a university effort to respond to DPD issues, which are global.

The recommendations will be voted on at the June Faculty Senate meeting.

SPECIAL REPORTS

University Goals - Compelling Learning Experience

In the third, and final, report related to the University Goals, Dean Kay Schaffer, College of Liberal Arts, gave a
progress report on the Compelling Learning Experience. All three task forces related to University Goals were
established for "defining, refining, clarifying and communicating the University's three goals."

She explained that the Compelling Learning Task Force was appointed by former Provost Arnold in July 1999.
The membership consists of: Andrew Hashimoto and Kay Schaffer (co-chairs), Leslie Burns, Joe Hendricks,
Kathleen Moore, Donald Parker, Larry Roper, Kyle Shaver and Ariana Sulton (students), Janine Trempy, and
Jack Van de Water. They were charged with "planning an appropriate strategy to enhance campus-wide
understanding of the Compelling Learning Experience Goal and its implications for OSU's units, programs,
services and activities."

Schaffer then reviewed the task force activities to date, including definitions and dimension, the focus and
scope, and the task structure and components.

The focus and scope involves undergraduate and graduate students, as well as international and minority
students.

2) Align institutional planning and resource allocations with the learning mission. Use evidence of
student learning to guide program improvement, planning and resource allocation.

Schaffer noted that, in terms of progress, OSU is doing very well, but could do better in some areas. She
acknowledged that doing things better will mean making some hard decisions, but that students will ultimately
benefit.

Senator Cloughesy, Forestry, was disturbed that this appeared to be focused on resident instruction. He
argued that Extension, outreach, and continuing education can be just as compelling and, perhaps, more
demanding. He encouraged the task force to look beyond resident instruction for examples of compelling
learning. Schaffer responded that she did not mean to imply that it was limited to on-campus.

Senator Lee, Liberal Arts, questioned what is meant by a compelling learning experience when there are
150 students in a class. She noted that enrollment needs to be addressed in the report.

Senator Landau felt that the document focused primarily on undergraduates and noted that graduate students
are very much a part of research institutions. Schaffer noted that the report will focus on both.

She explained that it's necessary to cut journals since there is always a yearly 7% gap between budget increases
of 3% and journal increases of 10%. In 1999-2000 the cost of the current journal subscriptions increased by $250,000 (approximately 10%).

Butcher noted that she is often asked why more journals are not available electronically. She explained that most
electronic journals require that a paper journal also be kept, which results in no savings. In addition, many journals
are not available electronically and some disciplines don't lend themselves to electronic versions.

She explained that when the building is paid off in October, some money from the campaign may be redirected to the
library collections. The Valley Library will receive $200,000 in Technology Resource Fees this year and has requested
$300,000 next year for collections. The current budget is slightly under $7 million, with about $4 million going for
collections and the remainder goes toward services and supplies (technology) and salaries. The technology component
allows the Valley Library to access ORBIS, which is an on-line catalog of most of the Oregon libraries and some in
Washington.

Butcher explained that, without making any cuts, assuming that the budget increases 3% per year, journals increase
10%, and books increase 3%, by 2003/04 there will be a deficit of $959,000 resulting solely from price increases.

The primary reason for the journal cut is because for-profit publishers continue to control more of the journal publishing.
Faculty relinquish their copyright when publishing through a for-profit publisher who then sells back to the institution at
an inflated rate. When faculty published through associations, which are not-for-profit, the journal prices remained relatively
low. She felt this was an academic problem that faculty need to be aware of and to work on resolving.

She noted that the problem of increasing journal costs is not unique to OSU and that the U of O is cutting $300,000
this year.

The Valley Library determined what to cut using statistics for journals that had generally low use and high cost.
Journals for potential cancellation were selected according to the following criteria:

– Journal subscription costs over $2,800 per year; and
– Journal was on few or no faculty survey lists in 1998/99 journal review (faculty were asked to submit a
personal list of journals important for their teaching and research); and
– Journal was rarely cited by OSU faculty (based on ISI journal citation report covering 1981-1995).

Senator Robson, Science, requested information on the plan to deal with the situation and to increase input and
dialogue from faculty. Butcher responded that the dialogue is starting and encouraged faculty on editorial boards
to talk about it at the editorial board level and go as far as resigning from the board in protest, as she has done.
There is also a need to deal with issues surrounding electronic publishing, web publishing and promotion and tenure.
She noted that faculty should not be penalized, in terms of promotion and tenure, for publishing electronically.

Senator Shor, Engineering, requested that a list of overly expensive for-profit publications be distributed; Butcher
agreed that it would be.

In response to Senator Lee, Science, Butcher responded that there will be a $300,000 journal cut this year. They
are working with PSU, OHSU and the U of O to share titles, but there are still more titles than available money.

Butcher explained that journal costs are not decreasing as a result of institutions canceling subscriptions since
the primary market is pharmaceuticals and hospitals. She suggested that if faculty were to withdraw their product,
editors would not have a journal to publish.

Butcher invited faculty to call her at 737-7300 with comments.

INFORMATION ITEMS

– Barbara Balz, Registrar, requested assistance from faculty to participate in Commencement.
Since Commencement will consist of two ceremonies this year, participation from at least one faculty
member from every department is critical.
– A proposed Department of Intercollegiate Athletics Mission Statement may be viewed on the web at
http://osu.orst.edu/dept/senate/athmiss.htm. Comments should be directed to Henry Sayre, NCAA Compliance Committee Chair for the Athletics Certification effort, at hsayre@orst.edu or 737-5018.

REPORT FROM & DIALOG WITH THE PROVOST

Interim Provost White's report included the following items:

The Post-Tenure Review document has been through review at the Chancellor's Office and will be available soon.
A plan to engage in the process will be implemented for faculty affected by this document. He acknowledged that
there is a defacto backlog which will require flexibility in implementing. He stated that OSU's document is very
strong as compared to other OUS campuses.

The President's Cabinet retreat focusing on diversity was postponed to May 30.

REPORT FROM & DIALOG WITH THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT

President Matzke's report included the following items:

Faculty Salaries - Matzke noted that the salary increases at OSU (2% + 2%) were the lowest in OUS. Although the cell values were funded, no money went toward salary increases. The unionized faculty at PSU have noted that they could not figure out who they were negotiating with under the new budget model, whether it was the institution or the system. The lobbyists present at the recent joint AOF, AAUP, IFS meeting felt it would be more productive to negotiate directly with the legislature.

Education Issue - Faculty have informed Matzke that they are concerned about conversations surrounding restructuring of teacher education. There are a variety of plans and documents being discussed in relation to teacher education at OSU. Although Matzke has learned that there are ongoing conversations, President Risser has assured him that there is no plan in place regarding teacher education. Matzke encouraged faculty to contact him with rumors and he will follow-up on them.

PEBB - OUS will be held without harm in 2001 and basically the same package will be continued. OUS still has the option of changing providers and plans in the future.